It's a bit hard to see the picture you posted. It appears to have PILZ DIGIP CC 016/038. Mine says CC 016.038-2 SPV 84-25102. That probably means it's a bootleg right? But why would it have some correct information and not all of it that I saw in that picture? Btw it's not too late for me to open up a case for item not as described on ebay. It is from latvia by the way.

Edit: I guess it doesn't matter because I just got a refund for the CD!

Just click on the pic dude, it makes it much bigger and clearer to read. Matrix is "PILZ DIGIP CC 016/038 441" (the 441 is a little bit round the disc lower down). If its matrix in that exact font style it is the first press. The font on the 2nd euro press had the same font style of matrix from what I can remember (I used to own it), but I can't recall the matrix code (it was different, but I'm pretty certain it wasn't just the cat no). Anyway, you're refunded now - so no worries all 'round.

Yes, that's either a repress or part of the 75% that are circulating in the internet and are wrong (I would like to see that segmented between blogs/homepages, cooperative databases, online press, corporate sites, etc., because it seems a arbitrary number and rather useless considering the multitude of data that makes the internet nowadays).

What is not wrong is when IFPI itself, not user submited data, not fan sites, IFPI, the entity that started the SID codes, says they started being deployed in 1994 (which makes sense because it's main purpose was to help fight CD piracy and that was hardly a problem before the early 90s). And that is one of the first links posted in the replies to you, and then again, and that you consistently ignored because basing on muddy data fits your solipsism.

It seems you have a problem with reality. I like reality, so I'm ignoring further replies from you.

Edit: what you really need to know, and this may come as either handy (if you're buying) or annoying (if you're selling, hence the dreadmeat question on a previous reply), is that if it's presented as a pre-94 CD 1st press but it has IFPI codes then it's a repress.

@ japcFunny! when I find a flaw in your argument, you became rude.It seems, you have a problem with your education, being rude and unpolite does not give the reason to your argue. Anyway I dont expect so much from mankind.

Let me refresh your memory: were you who wrote 3 links in order to inform when the IFPI code started, and the Pink Floyd link contains info well clear that a released from 1987 was made with IFPI.

Therefore, your post didn't help so much. Obviously, you didnt check what you linked, just GOOGLE, copy and paste. A wrong common practice.

You can based your knowledge in the first GOOGLE entrance, or you can belive nothing and test everything as I do. Furthermore when threre is several sources with different info.

I think we have 2 things in common: we like metal, and we detest bootlegs, for this reason both of us are just writting here. I'm not interested in the controversy, but both of us, have different ways to expand our knowledge, you believe in the first google entrance, me test everything.

svartetroner70 why is so hard to understand that CD from 1987 (says on CD and Backcover) is not printed in '87 if has got IFPI, rather from middle '90??? It's repress for God sake. I know that my english it's not perfect but it's understandable enough.I think it's very simple like 1+1=2, i don't know why don't you accept (great band) this??

@Osmi_PutnikIt seems its you who don't understand. Did you check the link: http://pinkfloydarchives.com/DUSCDPF.htm posted by japc, (and not by me)?I do not know if this website is accurate or not, since I dont know who update it. But after check it, I think is a well completed web at least for the Pink Floyd discography. if you check this web you can see following:

So accordingly this web, the first press of that album released in 1987 contains IFPI.If you check the whole web, you can see that this album was re-pressed 11 times, and you can find a complete info for each re-press. So accordingly this web, the 7th version from the first press from 1987 of that album was made with IFPI. Since each re-press has his own description, if this 7th version would've been a repress would've been described as repress, but they catalog it as first press.

Its NOT ME who say the first press of "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" from 1987 contains IFPI, but the web linked by japc. I am only asking to jppc, since he is trying to argue that IFPI started in the early 90's, why in a web linked by him, we can find a released from 1987 with IFPI.

Do you understand?

Obviously I know that if a label do a repress of any CD from their roster may keep the exact booklet and inlay from the original press, in that way a 2012 repress from a 1992 album may contains in the inlay something like: C + P 1992. It is more than clear, and I never said the opposite.

It's been shown, over and over again, that the codes were introduced in 1994. If your CD has that code, it's been pressed in 1994 or later. There's simply NO WAY around that fact. Just admit that your beloved disc, whateverthefuck it is, is a repress with otherwise identical booklets and whateverthehell you might have. It's not inconceivable that someone's CDs and jewel cases have been mixed up at some point, or something. But if it has that code, it is from 1994 or later. Argue all you want, it's not going to change the fact, unless you want to prove the existence of a time machine.

We all have CDs that seem to be originals, are originals, and may even be impossible to tell apart from first press items, but are not first press. That's the main reason why I NEVER trade with people who insist on first presses, they are no interested in the music, they just want to have their lists of CDs in a certain way. Thus, unless I get the necessary identification information before the trade, I won't trade with anyone wanting a first press. Anyway, as I believe a manufacturer's website and a pretty damn credible-looking document rather than an error-prone user-based Pink Floyd website in matters like the year of a certain certification introduction, I'd say you're on VERY thin ice here. Please stop arguing, you already lost; this thread is intended to be a source of information, not a stage for your displays of anachronistic acrobatics. Shut up about this already.

svartetroner70 wrote:

As I said a monkey with a computer may update any website.

Yes, and your contributions to this discussion are living proof of that.

EDIT: if you google the IPFI code on the Bolt Thrower page you linked to, you get a Godflesh album. Funny, ain't it?

OK, I didn't read this all the way through, the thread was flagged. But the fact still stands: the code was introduced in 1994, and if you have a CD with that code, it's not from 1987. If you have proof that this is wrong, link it here. Otherwise stop arguing. I did quite bit of googling before I posted, and your argument is either invalid or presented in a goofy manner.

svartetroner70 wrote:

Quote:

this thread is intended to be a source of information

really?

Well, fuck... maybe I'm mistaken, and the first post on this thread is wrong, and this was meant as a sandbox for you. If that indeed is the case, my apologies, you may return to your fingerpainting. I somehow think you're being a cunt there, though.

@NaperoGreat, so you insult without read my entire posts? this i what a moderator do?As I wrote I am not interested in the controversy, but I am a person who believe nothing and test everything, therefore I dont based my knowledge in the first google entrace.

Let me make you an overview. Some of you based your thesis about the origin of the IFPI code from the information from some websites. I found websites with information that place the origin before 1994. Someone (not me) also linked the Pink Floyd web with the obvious error (a 1987 released with Ifpi code)Since the information circulating in internet is full of errors (yourself has the proof when you tried to google the Bolt Thrower ifpi) I am trying to know what information is accurate and what information is wrong. That's all.

Next time do honor to your status as moderator and treat people trying to know the truth, with respect.

Some of you based your thesis about the origin of the IFPI code from the information from some websites. I found websites with information that place the origin before 1994.

Link to one credible website with proof of this, and you're off the hook. Otherwise, shut up.

There is a difference between a CD manufacturer's document on the origin of the code, and a random user-generated website with the codes OBVIOUSLY from represses. Unless you have nothing more than that to support your thread-distracting blabbering, stay out of here.

My dark millennium ashore the celestial burden CD has arrived. I see no matrix code on the bottom though. Only A 9372. I couldn't find the matrix code anywhere on discogs and because now that i'm checking all of my CDs I certainly want the matrix code of one I payed 40 dollars for.

Can someone post a picture or confirm from their own CD that the only numbers on the bottom are A 9372? I would appreciate it.

Does someone have Tyrant (Germany) CDs on Battle cry records...please take a look at this picture and compare with yours cd all 4 of it have that kid of matrix/font and is very strange for me...either is bootleg or very bad pressing plantMatrix: Tyrant BC 033

Does someone have Tyrant (Germany) CDs on Battle cry records...please take a look at this picture and compare with yours cd all 4 of it have that kid of matrix/font and is very strange for me...either is bootleg or very bad pressing plantMatrix: Tyrant BC 033

I bought these when they first came outTyrant-Fight For Your Life Matrix Tyrant BC 031Tyrant-Mean Machine Matrix Tyrant BC 030Tyrant -Ruling The World Matrix Tyrant BC 033Tyrant-Running Hot Matrix Tyrant BC 032

And yes they do look very cheaply made, i have other reissues and remasters from battle cry records and all look very cheaply made

Can somebody put a picture of both sides of cd for real Grinder-Dead End. I have seen many versions, i have bought most of my cds back in the day, but took a chance and bought this Grinder cd recently from a private site for 20 euros and the writing side is done in a off brown color, the matrix matches up perfectly from what i have read and seems to be right font size. But i have be told that on the written side the word Grinder should be in BLUE color and the rest of the writing in BLACK color. If it is a boot, then they did one hell of a job except for the written color scheme on the CD. I also notice that a lot of Grinder cds with Blue and Black color schemes of the wording coming out of Russia at the moment. And from what i can tell they are perfect copies.

Can somebody put a picture of both sides of cd for real Grinder-Dead End. I have seen many versions, i have bought most of my cds back in the day, but took a chance and bought this Grinder cd recently from a private site for 20 euros and the writing side is done in a off brown color, the matrix matches up perfectly from what i have read and seems to be right font size. But i have be told that on the written side the word Grinder should be in BLUE color and the rest of the writing in BLACK color. If it is a boot, then they did one hell of a job except for the written color scheme on the CD. I also notice that a lot of Grinder cds with Blue and Black color schemes of the wording coming out of Russia at the moment. And from what i can tell they are perfect copies.

Scan or take a photo of matrix and i will tell you right away if it's org!

AND PLEASE PEOPLE, NO MORE "CAN SOMEBODY PUT SCAN?" NO!!!!!! YOU PUT SCAN HERE AND WE WILL VALUATE....PLEASE!!!!

AND PLEASE PEOPLE, NO MORE "CAN SOMEBODY PUT SCAN?" NO!!!!!! YOU PUT SCAN HERE AND WE WILL VALUATE....PLEASE!!!!

No offence it's not personal....and thanks for Tyrant!!!

agreed, but not in caps ha ha

the only problem i have with good quality scans of discs online is that the bootlegging scumbags can use them to 'make' disc images... you guys wanting to know if you have bootlegs or not should also check out those album cover websites too, this is exactly what my angelcorpse cd seller did.one of them came from here: http://www.allcdcovers.com/

I never even realized it was you until know, eh. I always do my Ebay purchases based on the feedback profile of sellers and I have to say that your neg must be really hard to swallow. I'm sure it was unwarranted.

On Sororicide, trust me when I say that I get that people want to have the 1/500 copy of XYZ album but it's the obscene amount of money that makes me wonder if that's really worth it. Forget the music, we're talking a minimum wage on a CD! That's a lot of money... I saw today a four song EP of an unknown Dutch thrash band and it was over $200 already! It's just too much in my book.